It seems to me that some laws about vices such as drugs, gambling,etc shouldn't be for the people who - for whatever reason - can handle things without hrting themselves or others.

I know people who use different drugs, often, and yet they are still productive members of society. They are successful at their good jobs, are great parents, and their kids are doing really well. They don't rob anyone to support their habit and they don't beat their wives. In other words, some people can handle it, others can't. Laws - like the drug laws - are written to protect the weak from ruining their own lives and the lives of their families. I would make possession legal - IF you can show you have a job and don't neglect your family. If you're poor and out of work, no drugs for you.

Gambling - about 8-10 years ago it was found out that one national conservative figure in the US had lost up to a million dollars gambling. On one talk show they took him to task, "You're conservative, you tout family values and write books on it, and now it turns out you are losing money gambling? Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?" He replied that no, it didn't, because he can afford one million dollars. His gambling is not hurting his family by taking food out of their mouths or by denying them anything.

So what say you, ol' wise members of OTB, should some of us be exempt from these silly laws?

Where do you draw the line though?

Where is the line between somebody who does too many drugs and somebody who has a problem, for example.?

Personally, I think that ALL of us should be exempt from the laws you mentioned above. Prohibiting such things does not prevent then and if anything worsens any problems by forcing them underground.

I used to work in a nursing home. I think old people in nursing homes and the terminally ill should be able to have all the opiates they want.

I had to put my mother in a nursing home after she became unable to walk and incontinent and had three strokes. The doctors put her on anti depressant medication and she became nice for the last couple of years of her life. She died at 98. I asked her where she was going. She said calmly with a smile on her face, “to see the angles.”

I agree with the OP.

I do wonder where the lines should be drawn, though (there's a cocaine pun there).

Some illegal substances are plainly so addictive and harmfull (methampetamine or heroin for example), that there should be outright bans because nobody is, or at least most people are not, exempt or immune from the detrimental effects of their use.

Blood alcohol limits should be flexible also. Some people are more impaired, and some are less impaired, at any particular blood alcohol level, and it is the level of impairment that affects driving and thus the other road users.

But then, taking it further, if it is about the ability to feed your family........ does that mean that a very poor chap should be banned from tobacco unless he grew it himself? He buys ciggies and not food, and so his family go hungry. He gets lung cancer and dies and leaves his family destitute.....but a rich man can afford ciggies and after he dies his family are still ok.

But then, taking it further, if it is about the ability to feed your family........ does that mean that a very poor chap should be banned from tobacco unless he grew it himself? He buys ciggies and not food, and so his family go hungry. He gets lung cancer and dies and leaves his family destitute.....but a rich man can afford ciggies and after he dies his family are still ok.

Yeah, a good incentive for poor people to work more. Seriously, I like drinking (not so much over here in Dubai). But in the past whenever I was between jobs I would stop drinking until I found a new job. I used to tell people that if I wasn't working I shouldn't be spending my money on booze. Smokers are the worst (sorry). I've known people scrounging coins to eat but yet find enough money for smokes. Good thing none of them had a family to feed.

I guess the way I was going with this thread is that we can keep the laws. Let everyone continue on the way they are. But if somone gets caught by the police, all they need to do is show them or the court that they are resonsible and get off. Maybe with a nominal fine to pay some court costs or whatever. But if someone can take care of themselves and their family and not hurt anyone they yes, that should be taken into consideration and they should be given a pass. So if you get caught smoking a joint and you've got a good job, and all is OK at home, don't worry. If not, you're in trouble.

People are already not treated the same because they can't handle everything the same. Say say two guys go into a bar, each has ten beers, as they walk to the next one, the first man is walking steady and straight. The second one is falling all over the place. The police arrest the second man because, basically, he has shown that he can't take care of himself. He can't drink that much and be fine. Sure, the police can't be everywhere and see everyone, but the point I'm trying to make it that the law is already applied unequally to people so why not take it a step further.

Here's a little story I tell every so often:

Prior to the 1970s if you were a heroin addict in the UK you could register with a GP and get your heroin on prescription. It's possible to be a heroin addict and live a normal productive life as long as the heroin is of a known strength, unadulterated and you have a regular known supply. There were 5,000 registered heroin addicts in the UK and drug related crime was effectively zero. The UK was considered slightly oddball in that it was willing to do this. It was 'encouraged' by other countries to stop this and join the 'War on Drugs'. It reduced the availability of legal heroin drastically at first and eventually made it completely illegal. Now there are believed to be approximately 250,000 heroin users in the UK. No-one is quite sure how many because there's no longer a register. Drug related crime, both pushing and crimes such as burglary to get the money for dope account for the majority of crime in the UK. Some wars can't be won and should never be started in the first place.

Here's a little story I tell every so often:

Prior to the 1970s if you were a heroin addict in the UK you could register with a GP and get your heroin on prescription. It's possible to be a heroin addict and live a normal productive life as long as the heroin is of a known strength, unadulterated and you have a regular known supply. There were 5,000 registered heroin addicts in the UK and drug related crime was effectively zero. The UK was considered slightly oddball in that it was willing to do this. It was 'encouraged' by other countries to stop this and join the 'War on Drugs'. It reduced the availability of legal heroin drastically at first and eventually made it completely illegal. Now there are believed to be approximately 250,000 heroin users in the UK. No-one is quite sure how many because there's no longer a register. Drug related crime, both pushing and crimes such as burglary to get the money for dope account for the majority of crime in the UK. Some wars can't be won and should never be started in the first place.

very good post and very true, imo the whole of most moral laws and laws to protect our personal saftey are driven by the insurance companies; the real big brother of the world.

i am still baffled by Thailand ' No Gambling ' Law

if they where to leglaize it, the state would earn billions of dollars in Taxes, just look at singapore as an example...

i am still baffled by Thailand ' No Gambling ' Law

if they where to leglaize it, the state would earn billions of dollars in Taxes, just look at singapore as an example...

It would also take money from the maffia who run illegal gambling dens, and the police who take bribes to turn a blind eye.

Isn't the Obama administration already using selective judgement about which laws to enforce?

The Feds have been doing this for years.

Isn't the Obama administration already using selective judgement about which laws to enforce?

The Feds have been doing this for years.

Do you mean, like laws that prohibit torture, or laws around habeus corpus and laws regarding a right to a timely trial?

I thought it was The Texan Village Idiot (yeah, he gets to be capitilised now that the nickname has appropriately stuck) that used selctive judgement in those areas.

Isn't the Obama administration already using selective judgement about which laws to enforce?

The Feds have been doing this for years.

Do you mean, like laws that prohibit torture, or laws around habeus corpus and laws regarding a right to a timely trial?

I thought it was The Texan Village Idiot (yeah, he gets to be capitilised now that the nickname has appropriately stuck) that used selctive judgement in those areas.

No, I was really referring to illegal immigration and the failure to prosecute New Black Panther Party members for civil rights violations.

Can you prove to me where any US laws have been violated by the previous administration in the three areas you mentioned?

By the way, your very own invention "The Texan village Idiot" should read..."The Texas Village Idiot". I suppose you could say "The Village Idiot Texan" if you were so inclined but either way, it is rather childish.

Do you choose selctive (sic) use of capitilised (sic) words now?

Isn't the Obama administration already using selective judgement about which laws to enforce?

The Feds have been doing this for years.

Do you mean, like laws that prohibit torture, or laws around habeus corpus and laws regarding a right to a timely trial?

I thought it was The Texan Village Idiot (yeah, he gets to be capitilised now that the nickname has appropriately stuck) that used selctive judgement in those areas.

Enough of the flaming, alright?

Isn't the Obama administration already using selective judgement about which laws to enforce?

The Feds have been doing this for years.

Do you mean, like laws that prohibit torture, or laws around habeus corpus and laws regarding a right to a timely trial?

I thought it was The Texan Village Idiot (yeah, he gets to be capitilised now that the nickname has appropriately stuck) that used selctive judgement in those areas.

No, I was really referring to illegal immigration and the failure to prosecute New Black Panther Party members for civil rights violations.

Can you prove to me where any US laws have been violated by the previous administration in the three areas you mentioned?

By the way, your very own invention "The Texan village Idiot" should read..."The Texas Village Idiot". I suppose you could say "The Village Idiot Texan" if you were so inclined but either way, it is rather childish.

Do you choose selctive (sic) use of capitilised (sic) words now?

Still getting off on people's typos? Rather very childish.....entering second childhood perhaps?

I'm not sure why you "sic'ed" "capitilised".

Actually, I was not the one that started the "village idiot". But thanks for the suggestion....I think "The Village Idiot Texan" is much better.....plus it has a more comfortable acronym.

The VIT. I like it.

Isn't the Obama administration already using selective judgement about which laws to enforce?

The Feds have been doing this for years.

Do you mean, like laws that prohibit torture, or laws around habeus corpus and laws regarding a right to a timely trial?

I thought it was The Texan Village Idiot (yeah, he gets to be capitilised now that the nickname has appropriately stuck) that used selctive judgement in those areas.

No, I was really referring to illegal immigration and the failure to prosecute New Black Panther Party members for civil rights violations.

Can you prove to me where any US laws have been violated by the previous administration in the three areas you mentioned?

By the way, your very own invention "The Texan village Idiot" should read..."The Texas Village Idiot". I suppose you could say "The Village Idiot Texan" if you were so inclined but either way, it is rather childish.

Do you choose selctive (sic) use of capitilised (sic) words now?

Still getting off on people's typos? Rather very childish.....entering second childhood perhaps?

I'm not sure why you "sic'ed" "capitilised".

Actually, I was not the one that started the "village idiot". But thanks for the suggestion....I think "The Village Idiot Texan" is much better.....plus it has a more comfortable acronym.

The VIT. I like it.

I'm happy I was able to brighten your day.

Now to your inability to understand the (sic) on "capitilised". Try "capitalized" and see if that gets past your spell-check. You are using spell-check, aren't you?

Now, would you care to answer my question, quoted here yet again?

"Can you prove to me where any US laws have been violated by the previous administration in the three areas you mentioned?"

I'm happy I was able to brighten your day.

Now to your inability to understand the (sic) on "capitilised". Try "capitalized" and see if that gets past your spell-check. You are using spell-check, aren't you?

.........

You did brighten my day a tad...thanks again.

Ahhhh... I suspected it was the arrogance and ignorance of one who thinks that American spelling is THE spelling that should be followed around the world.

Typical.

Before you try to insult me with insinuations of an inability to understand something, why don't you try English spelling for English words? It would be a whole lot less arrogant and ignorant.

Now, would you care to answer my question, quoted here yet again?

"Can you prove to me where any US laws have been violated by the previous administration in the three areas you mentioned?"

I'm referring, of course, to Gitmo, as you probably realise.

Isn't the Obama administration already using selective judgement about which laws to enforce?

The Feds have been doing this for years.

Do you mean, like laws that prohibit torture, or laws around habeus corpus and laws regarding a right to a timely trial?

I thought it was The Texan Village Idiot (yeah, he gets to be capitilised now that the nickname has appropriately stuck) that used selctive judgement in those areas.

Enough of the flaming, alright?

Who's flaming? Do you mean my reference to the Texan Village Idiot, who shall henceforth be referred to as the Village Idiot Texan, or VIT for short?

Where's the flame there?

You do realise, I hope, to whom we refer with VIT?....he's not a member here. And he is an idiot, and he is Texan...... where's the flame?

Now, would you care to answer my question, quoted here yet again?

"Can you prove to me where any US laws have been violated by the previous administration in the three areas you mentioned?"

I'm referring, of course, to Gitmo, as you probably realise.

Your reference to Gitmo has no legal standing.

There have been no violations of US laws as you stated in your original post. Therefore you are wrong with your claim that US laws have been violated with respect to torture, habeas corpus and the right to a timely trial.

Are there any other straws you can clutch at to support your statement?

I'm happy I was able to brighten your day.

Now to your inability to understand the (sic) on "capitilised". Try "capitalized" and see if that gets past your spell-check. You are using spell-check, aren't you?

.........

You did brighten my day a tad...thanks again.

Ahhhh... I suspected it was the arrogance and ignorance of one who thinks that American spelling is THE spelling that should be followed around the world.

Typical.

Before you try to insult me with insinuations of an inability to understand something, why don't you try English spelling for English words? It would be a whole lot less arrogant and ignorant.

First there is this:

____________________________________________________

Oxford Dictionaries Online

The world's most trusted dictionaries

No exact results found for capitilised in the dictionary.

Did you mean capitalised?

Did you mean capitalized?

Did you mean capitalise?

Did you mean capitalises?

Did you mean capitalist?

Link: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/noresults?dictionaryVersion=region-uk&isWritersAndEditors=true&noresults=true&page=1&pageSize=20&q=capitilised&searchUri=All&sort=alpha&type=dictionarysearch

______________________________________________________

and then...:

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.

capitalist

capitalism

capital stock

capitalize

capitulation

Capitoline

capitalization

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitilised

______________________________________________________

Of course we can look at this:

Dictionary Search

Word or phrase: capitilised

Sorry, no dictionaries indexed in the selected category contain the word capitilised.

Perhaps you meant:

capitalised (found in 6 dictionaries)

If not, you might try using the wildcards * and ? to find the word you're looking for. For example, use

capi* to search for words beginning with capi, or

*ised to search for words ending with ised

Link: http://www.onelook.com/?w=capitilised&ls=a

___________________________________________________

And finally we have this:

Results for capitilised

capitilised was not found

Did you spell it correctly? Here are some alternatives:

capitalised

capitalises

capitalise

capitalized

capitalising

capitalistic

capitalism

capitalists

capitalist

civilised

Link: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/british/?q=capitilised

______________________________________________________

To recap, we have Oxford Dictionaries, Merriam-Webster Dictionaries, OneLook on line Dictionary and The Cambridge Dictionary all saying there is no such word as "capitilised".

I suppose they are all as "arrogant and ignorant" as you state I am. Right????

Ok, old man, get your rocks off on my spelling, (we've had this out before)....lets look at your use of "z" instead of "s" in "capitalised", which is what I was referring to in terms of arrogance and ignorance.....and I concede my use of "i" when I should have used "a".

Happy now now?

One huge difference between me and you is that I concede my mistakes.

It is very odd though, that you have to pull me up on mere spelling (not to mention typos!).

Why do you get off on that?

Now, would you care to answer my question, quoted here yet again?

"Can you prove to me where any US laws have been violated by the previous administration in the three areas you mentioned?"

I'm referring, of course, to Gitmo, as you probably realise.

Your reference to Gitmo has no legal standing.

There have been no violations of US laws as you stated in your original post. Therefore you are wrong with your claim that US laws have been violated with respect to torture, habeas corpus and the right to a timely trial.

Are there any other straws you can clutch at to support your statement?

Start a Gitmo thread, old fella. It is a whole subject on it's own.

Isn't the Obama administration already using selective judgement about which laws to enforce?

The Feds have been doing this for years.

Do you mean, like laws that prohibit torture, or laws around habeus corpus and laws regarding a right to a timely trial?

I thought it was The Texan Village Idiot (yeah, he gets to be capitilised now that the nickname has appropriately stuck) that used selctive judgement in those areas.

Enough of the flaming, alright?

Who's flaming? Do you mean my reference to the Texan Village Idiot, who shall henceforth be referred to as the Village Idiot Texan, or VIT for short?

Where's the flame there?

You do realise, I hope, to whom we refer with VIT?....he's not a member here. And he is an idiot, and he is Texan...... where's the flame?

It's no secret around here that you're a flamer.

I'm happy I was able to brighten your day.

Now to your inability to understand the (sic) on "capitilised". Try "capitalized" and see if that gets past your spell-check. You are using spell-check, aren't you?

.........

You did brighten my day a tad...thanks again.

Ahhhh... I suspected it was the arrogance and ignorance of one who thinks that American spelling is THE spelling that should be followed around the world.

Typical.

Before you try to insult me with insinuations of an inability to understand something, why don't you try English spelling for English words? It would be a whole lot less arrogant and ignorant.

First there is this:

____________________________________________________

Oxford Dictionaries Online

The world's most trusted dictionaries

No exact results found for capitilised in the dictionary.

Did you mean capitalised?

Did you mean capitalized?

Did you mean capitalise?

Did you mean capitalises?

Did you mean capitalist?

Link: http://www.oxforddic...ictionarysearch

______________________________________________________

and then...:

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.

capitalist

capitalism

capital stock

capitalize

capitulation

Capitoline

capitalization

http://www.merriam-w...ary/capitilised

______________________________________________________

Of course we can look at this:

Dictionary Search

Word or phrase: capitilised

Sorry, no dictionaries indexed in the selected category contain the word capitilised.

Perhaps you meant:

capitalised (found in 6 dictionaries)

If not, you might try using the wildcards * and ? to find the word you're looking for. For example, use

capi* to search for words beginning with capi, or

*ised to search for words ending with ised

Link: http://www.onelook.c...apitilised&ls=a

___________________________________________________

And finally we have this:

Results for capitilised

capitilised was not found

Did you spell it correctly? Here are some alternatives:

capitalised

capitalises

capitalise

capitalized

capitalising

capitalistic

capitalism

capitalists

capitalist

civilised

Link: http://dictionary.ca.../?q=capitilised

______________________________________________________

To recap, we have Oxford Dictionaries, Merriam-Webster Dictionaries, OneLook on line Dictionary and The Cambridge Dictionary all saying there is no such word as "capitilised".

I suppose they are all as "arrogant and ignorant" as you state I am. Right????

Talk about a coincidence. Just a moment ago I played the word CAPITALISES in online Scrabble over 2W and 5W squares for 180 points, putting me well into the lead!

Koheesti:

I suggest if you ever are unfortunate enough to play Scrabble with Harcourt, you have a Kiwi Dictionary on hand.

They spell words differently down under.

Now, would you care to answer my question, quoted here yet again?

"Can you prove to me where any US laws have been violated by the previous administration in the three areas you mentioned?"

I'm referring, of course, to Gitmo, as you probably realise.

Your reference to Gitmo has no legal standing.

There have been no violations of US laws as you stated in your original post. Therefore you are wrong with your claim that US laws have been violated with respect to torture, habeas corpus and the right to a timely trial.

Are there any other straws you can clutch at to support your statement?

Start a Gitmo thread, old fella. It is a whole subject on it's own.

We don't need to start a Gitmo thread, little boy. My question is right on topic.

This thread is about people being exempt from some laws. You seem to think a previous US President violated some laws and is exempt from their enforcement.

All I am asking is proof of what you speak. In other words, put up or shut up.

PS: It took you how many posts before you even realized your mistake? The 's' and 'z' are interchangeable. The 'i' for an 'a' is sheer ignorance...or is it arrogance?.

I suggest you avoid nuclear physics as a career field.

Enough of this nonsense. Behave and stop being a grammar nazi's or get a holiday. I strongly suggest you ignore eachother.

Enough of the flaming, alright?

Who's flaming? Do you mean my reference to the Texan Village Idiot, who shall henceforth be referred to as the Village Idiot Texan, or VIT for short?

Where's the flame there?

You do realise, I hope, to whom we refer with VIT?....he's not a member here. And he is an idiot, and he is Texan...... where's the flame?

It's no secret around here that you're a flamer.

As a personal, real life friend of Harcourt, I am able to comment about him.

Flamer, noway, get a life.

We speak "The Queen's English" here.

The real English, more's the pity you don't.

The President's English has come about through Americans inability to spell as required, just too lazy to learn.

For some unknown reason, the English, Queens English dictionary will not check spelling.

Feel sorry for you.

Enough of the flaming, alright?

Who's flaming? Do you mean my reference to the Texan Village Idiot, who shall henceforth be referred to as the Village Idiot Texan, or VIT for short?

Where's the flame there?

You do realise, I hope, to whom we refer with VIT?....he's not a member here. And he is an idiot, and he is Texan...... where's the flame?

It's no secret around here that you're a flamer.

As a personal, real life friend of Harcourt, I am able to comment about him.

Flamer, noway, get a life.

We speak "The Queen's English" here.

The real English, more's the pity you don't.

The President's English has come about through Americans inability to spell as required, just too lazy to learn.

For some unknown reason, the English, Queens English dictionary will not check spelling.

Feel sorry for you.

Kiwis might write the Queen's English, but they don't speak it. Same goes for the majority of England.

I think with these online dictionairies there should be an option for the user to choose which "English" they want. How difficult can it be to link that to a user's profile?

As a personal, real life friend of Harcourt

I always knew that he had two nicks.